On 30 April 2013 22:20, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote:
The current OSM website rendering seems to be geared towards urban
environments but hopefully with the developments being walked about this
will be improved. It can be difficult to get an overview of field
boundary
One of my little hopes (which I'm very very slowly attacking) is to have
OSM have all the walls and fences and suchlike to the same standard as
OS (them being very useful to walkers and suchlike).
I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
On 30 April 2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields? It's nice
to have fields as individual logical units, but they're defined by the
walls, so it strikes me the wall should be the defining characteristic.
Is this a
Well I'm definitely in favour of mapping the boundary ways: hedges, fences,
walls.
I do not see any general value in mapping fields one by one, unless there
are particular cultural reasons (for instance the Cheshire Cheese in Hope,
Derbyshire, has maps showing all the historical field names on
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:15 +0100, Ed Loach wrote:
I can't post to list at moment (stupid ISP) so am sending offlist
reply. I use landuse=farmland for the land (usually in areas greater
than a single field) and then add barrier=hedge or barrier=fence as
appropriate (I've not generally
Hedges are also rendered at higher zoom levels.
Mapping hedges alongside roads had inspired me to try mapping roads as areas,
not too sure if its been a success.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 30/04/2013 12:09 Henry Gomersall wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:15 +0100, Ed Loach
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:24 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
On 30 April 2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields?
It's nice
to have fields as individual logical units, but they're
defined by the
On 30/04/2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall wrote:
I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.92332lon=-1.7091zoom=15layers=M
are shown as closed loops of landuse=field. Clearly walls/fences and
enclosed fields are somewhat equivalent, but subtly different in
Henry Gomersall wrote:
That's interesting. So it seems that Mapnik _is_ rendering fences.
Who's the arbiter of what is rendered in the main map?
There's a trac subject for it, but as I understand it requests for
what gets rendered on the main map are a bit backed up right now
because the
On 30/04/2013 12:09, Henry Gomersall wrote:
That's interesting. So it seems that Mapnik _is_ rendering fences.
AFAIK, mapnik has rendered linear barrier for quite a while. The problem
it did have, which appears to have been sorted now, was landuse
barrier tags within the same polygon.
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:03 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
barrier=wall is very common in the areas that interest me (the
lakes),
and very useful info to walkers too.
For info, barrier=wall is currently also rendered:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.04915lon=-1.68855zoom=16layers=M
On 30 April 2013 12:32, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Does meadow mean grazing land? Do we define high fell land as meadow
as well when it's used for grazing sheep?
Perhaps a landuse=grazing should be available.
If you wanted to define field types, I'd suggest the following tags.
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:35 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
On 30 April 2013 12:32, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Does meadow mean grazing land? Do we define high fell land as
meadow
as well when it's used for grazing sheep?
Perhaps a
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:48 +0100, Henry Gomersall wrote:
Yeah, I had a look, but I can't see anything about mountainous pasture
land. The issue is land that is very clearly strongly influenced by
the
presence of animals, but isn't farmland as such. meadow is probably
acceptable, but doesn't
Hi all,
This feels like an appropriate thread to butt into and ask: is there an
accepted tag for grassy chalk downland, as found in southern England?
Would natural=fell be appropriate here too, or is that for proper
mountainous territory? If not, would something like natural=grassland,
This is quite reasonable, although as I use farmland for all agriculture
(but not viticulture or orchards) I had never appreciated that it seems to
have become synonymous with arable.
I still think landuse=farmland, farmland=arable is a better way of tagging
( a tad friendlier to data consumers).
This is one of the calcareous grasslands; downland sounds good, although
chalk_downland might be more precise.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
This feels like an appropriate thread to butt into and ask: is there an
accepted tag for grassy
@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:38:14 +0100
Subject: [Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field
One of my little hopes (which I'm very very slowly attacking) is to have
OSM have all the walls and fences and suchlike to the same standard as
OS (them being very useful to walkers and suchlike).
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
